Real Clear Politics' averages put the President's disapproval numbers at a new high. The question: What does President Obama need to do to start bringing his approval numbers back up? Bonus questions: Do these polls represent the possibility of a coming catastrophe in November? Will Democrat candidates be running away from the President? Sound off.
11 comments:
there is a big difference in campaigning and governing. All politicians numbers drop when the governing begins and the rhetoric ends. All should have known that the silver would tarnish, promises made during the campaign would not all come true. It does not really matter who sits in the chair so long as they do the will of the people who elected them, of course you can only please 50%
When one party wins control, mid-term elections usually turn massively against them (for example, the Republicans in 2006). It is almost inevitable. They key is to understand that this happens every time and to not freak out and abandon fundamental principles in a futile attempt to maintain control. If I were in charge of the Dem party, I would force the Republican hand by presenting health care piece by piece and force them to go on record voting against it. Americans did not understand how the whole health care package would help them individually, but they will if you do it in smaller chunks. Get the Republicans on record voting for the insurance companies and against people with cancer. And frame it that way. That is hardball politics and that is what the Dems need to do if they want to turn it around.
These poll numbers (that are simply the CURRENT week's poll numbers) are about five points higher than Reagan was at this point in the start of his second year - for the exact same reason: jobs hadn't returned yet after a big recession. Reagan's approval was in the low 40's and high 30's for his entire 2nd year. Current approval ratings mean absolutely nothing right now.
Looking at November, as Melanie said, every party that wins in an election loses a lot of seats in Congress during the following midterm - it's just set up that way; the math would still be very hard for the GOP to win back either the House or the Senate, but they'll definitely gain a lot of seats. How many will depend on whether or not the GOP decide to actually help to do something for the country this year, considering they took last year off. The president's favorability is very high and his approval right now (which, aside from these latest 3-day rollovers, has averaged between 50% & 49% (see the Gallup poll in the current list) in line with a president in a still-recovering economy when jobs haven't come back yet - it's Congress who have the dismal ratings. Both the Dems and the GOP have extremely low approvals in Congress (the GOP have lower ratings, but they're both low).
The GOP will do absolutely nothing this year for the country - just like they did absolutely nothing last year. But from what I'm seeing, the White House is already starting to shine a big spotlight on the fact that they're not doing anything and putting pressure on them to act - Shelby, the GOP Senator who was blocking all 70 appointees over pork he wanted - just relented in the face of the public pressure the WH put on him (of course he's still holding up air force appointees). What they need to do - both sides is to move some decent legislation out of the Senate and get it onto the president's desk. That will mean a lot in 10 months - which is a long time in politics.
Damn straight, SK!
Well, this is a unique strategy: paint Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress when it's the President's party which is in the vast majority and enjoyed a cloture-proof advantage for most of the previous year.
What you folks on the left seem to forget is that, for the most part, the bipartisanship in Congress came AGAINST the statist agenda. We have plenty of bipartisanship but it's just not in the direction you prefer.
Look at Frank Kratovil as an example of trying to run as fast as he can from the President's sinking popularity ship.
I have to hand it to Frank for political savvy, though. He can see which side his bread is buttered on for the district, but he's still in trouble electorally. Look for Kratovil to attempt to play the "independent" card again - problem is, he has an overall voting record now.
By the way, for Melanie and SK's sake: the GOP didn't lose House seats in 2002 (Bush's first midterm.) Then again, Bush still had seriously good popularity numbers at that time and Obama doesn't.
Oh, to answer the question about polling numbers: take a long vacation with no cameras around. I'm not saying this to make a joke, the man is WAY overexposed and being back in campaign mode isn't helping that any.
Sorry, Michael, but your spin is pretty transparent. Frank Kratovil has been an independent since he entered office. If he wasn't then there wouldn't be so many Liberals pissed off at him from the first day. He voted against HCR, voted against the President's budget last year, voted against every single omnibus spending bill put forth, etc., etc. I find it very telling that, even when he votes the way you want him to (and votes the way he promised he would), that you still slam him. Just goes to show how Republicans are only in it to unseat Democrats. You have no interest in governing effectively, or supporting the decisions of Representatives with whom you agree. You're only interest is to oppose for the purpose of opposition. That is the intent and nature of the Republican Party. For that reason, alone, you should never be given the power to run the government again. You don't debate in good faith, and have no interest in governing effectively. It's nothing but "birth certificates" and "socialism", with no solutions and no new ideas.
And "bipartisanship" isn't "doing whatever the Republicans want", no matter how you try to spin it that way.
2006, Michael. Look it up. As for 2002, here was the Republican playbook: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Tried it again in 2006, didn't work.
Melanie, you said:
When one party wins control, mid-term elections usually turn massively against them (for example, the Republicans in 2006). It is almost inevitable. They key is to understand that this happens every time and to not freak out and abandon fundamental principles in a futile attempt to maintain control.
I just pointed out the exception to the rule, which is relevant because that was the first midterm Bush faced as 2010 is the first one Obama faces - yet the indications are the Democrats will lose seats.
Believe it or not, I have given Kratovil credit where credit is due. But I think we would be far better served with a Republican in the seat.
Mike, The only "credit" you've ever given him has been side swipe comments where you imply that he's "running scared". That's not credit. And, of course you think we'd be better served with a Republican.
Notice that you didn't actually give a name? Just "a Republican". That's because this is about power party politics for you, and not about getting the best person for the job. You would vote for a banana, if it had an R next to it, before you voted for a Democrat. That's partisan hackery at its finest.
But the tea party is "independent" and not part of the Republican Party, right? Puh-leeze.
I like how he never defends himself against your birther accusations because he is a birther.
Michael, she very clearly pointed out to you, and rightly, that the reason Bush didn't have a bad midterm in 2002 is because of 9/11 - which is exactly why Bush's approval ratings were what they were. It was an historical anomaly. You just ignored that as if you didn't read it and simply repeated your first comment.
You're not on RedState right now. There are people who will actually challenge your b.s. here.
Post a Comment